| 0 |
Subject: SCOTUS to hear Washington DC Gun Ban Case
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [454491514] Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 14:54
Washington Post The court will hear the case after the first of the year. A decision likely would come before it adjourns at the end of June.
The District law, enacted in 1976, soon after the city won home rule, is one of the toughest in the nation. It prohibits residents from registering and possessing handguns in almost all circumstances. The District also requires that rifles and other long guns kept in the home be unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with trigger locks. The court struck down that law as well, saying it rendered the right to possess such a weapon for self-defense virtually useless.
It is unusual that both the losing party and the winners of that decision asked the court to consider the case. But Robert A. Levy, a wealthy entrepreneur and lawyer who is also a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, has worked for years to bring the matter to the Supreme Court.
He and others, including co-counsel Clark M. Neily III and Alan Gura, assembled six D.C. residents to challenge the District ban. Their idea was to present the courts with law-abiding plaintiffs who wanted the weapons for self-defense rather than people appealing criminal convictions for possessing weapons.
A federal district judge ruled against the residents, but the appeals court overturned that decision in a strongly worded opinion written by conservative Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman.
The District argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that the decision "drastically departs from the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
The petition filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer said the appeals court was wrong for three reasons: because it recognized an individual rather than collective right; because the Second Amendment serves as a restriction only on federal interference with state-regulated militias and state-recognized gun rights; and because the District is within its rights to protect its citizens by banning a certain type of gun.
"It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun," said the petition. "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die."
|
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 77 | astade
ID: 1533770
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 03:03
|
thanks for the healthy dose of 'infowars'.
|
| 78 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 10:08
|
Tree - The families of the 418,500 fatalities the US suffered during that conflict might disagree.
the US didn't get involved until December of 1941 when it was attacked.
Germany had been putting Jews (and others) into Concentration camps and ghettos for eight years prior.
even turned away a ship with Jews on it
the St. Louis was the name of that ship. 930 dead.
One of the first acts Hitler enacted when he took power was to outlaw the private ownership of guns...
...If the Jews in Nazi Germany hadn't been disarmed, do you think they might of been able to put up a little more of a fight?
i understood that. i don't believe it would have made a damned bit of difference. an entire continent couldn't stop him - civilians with guns would have??
It's only a short drive north, Walk. No free speech, no guns, nanny state, no balls lumberjacks as far as the eye can see.
i suspect your contact with Canadians is probably as often as your contact with Muslims, but hey, YOU READ A LOT!
i know a bunch of canadians. my brother married a canadian girl, and they've lived in BC for 10 years now. her family moved there from the US in the late 60s, early 70s. Dad is a carpenter, mom is a school teacher.
i've spent a lot of time in canada, and in several regions. BC, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and i can tell you i've never been an unpleasant, pompous, annoying Canadian. I've never seen them complain bitterly about their government - sure, taxes are a bit high, but as my brother says "i got lasik surgery from the government."
they gets plenty of quality services in return. i do love your "no free speech" statement though - it's among the more baffling of your ever-increasing baffling statements made around here.
i'd wager they have more free speech than we do at this point.
Wait wait i think i know, the U.S. was talking with Hitler w/o conditions and hoping diplomacy was going to work, offering more and more on the word of a madman to remain peaceful, while the Jews were being killed.
why don't you go f*ck yourself? ok - if you want, i'll send you the lube.
i have zero tolerance for smart ass, unrelated comments when it comes to 6 million of my people being murdered.
|
| 79 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 10:09
|
I have a far out idea and I wonder what you guys think. It might be a good idea it might suck, but it's better than the non-contributory blatherings the leftists here spew.
Maybe the NRA does this already, I don't know.
What if gun owners created their own volunteer militia that is only to act in the defense of a military invasion of the United States? At least on paper.
This seemingly could say that they are indeed a militia and then the anti-gun zealots wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
|
| 80 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 11:35
|
I think Box, your satirical point is the whole satirical point. Although nerve would disagree, I don't think folks have guns cos they need them in the event the gov't starts mass incarcerating, waterboarding, etc. our own. Having a militia on paper may satisfy the outdated constitution, but I think most folks with handguns don't have the defense of their freedom in mind...they have the "I'm gonna fcuk you up if you step foot in my house or try to mug me or cut me off on the highway attitude." Lotsa people get killed by guns unnecessarily. This is not collateral damage. This can be avoided. No guns, a lot less killings. You'd have to wield a knife or a bat or something else...Guns are too small and too convenient and times have changed in terms of their purpose and importance. Sure, keep your rifles, but handguns make a lot less sense (cost/benefit-wise)....IMO.
|
| 81 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 14:34
|
Having a militia on paper may satisfy the outdated constitution,
How can the Constitution be outdated?
There is a mechanism for updating the Constitution......it's Article V.....Amendments to the Constitution. We have a state Constitution here......456 amendments to that one. Only 27 to the U.S. one. Every state election we're voting on some new ones.
I think I know what you meant though.
|
| 82 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 14:42
|
Nerve - My sister, who is on the far left of pretty much all the squishy moderates here (no matter how Box tries to pigeonhole them as commies), is armed and takes the right to bear arms very, very seriously. I had to talk her out of taking a Russian assault rifle from my Grandpa's collection.
I own a gun, but with a child, I have decided not to keep it in the house.
That said, if the King turned the military loose on the populace, and the military actually followed the order, the populace would last about 30 seconds, even if every one of us had matching Uzi's permanently strapped to our hips.
|
| 83 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 15:57
|
That said, if the King turned the military loose on the populace, and the military actually followed the order, the populace would last about 30 seconds, even if every one of us had matching Uzi's permanently strapped to our hips.
... - Bili
...assuming the large majority of the army stayed loyal to the dictatorial powers and not to the people back home.
|
| 84 | Razor
ID: 545172413
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 16:09
|
Well, the point is still the same. Weapons citizens are allowed to own would be inconsequential in a battle with military weaponry. Nobody is going to be reaching for a rifle or a handgun to battle a tank.
|
| 85 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 16:26
|
Well, the point is still the same. Weapons citizens are allowed to own would be inconsequential in a battle with military weaponry. Nobody is going to be reaching for a rifle or a handgun to battle a tank.
You liberals sure enjoyed pointing out our failures in Iraq that highlighted...guess what?
Dealing with an insurgent portion of the populace armed with homemade explosives, automatic weapons, and small arms.
|
| 86 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 17:01
|
Razor
It would be a quagmire.
|
| 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 17:16
|
grasping Box. Iraq is a foreoign nation, with English as the non-standard language, and customes are people dont really know about, let alone recognize. Just a wee bit different for the American GI who finds himself under orders in downtown Wichita, dont ya think?
Simple truth...a civilain standing off in his brick home, would be slaughtered by the first Infantry assault squad on the premises. Unless an attack helicopter, or fixed wing aircraft, or mortar, or tank, or artillery rd, or Inf Assault Vehicle got there first.
|
| 88 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 17:18
|
How eager are USA servicemen to kill Americans?
Well guess they were pretty eager at Waco.
|
| 89 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 17:20
|
US serviceen for the most part Baldwin, are not anxious to kill much of anyone. They will do their jobs though.
|
| 90 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 17:41
|
How eager are USA servicemen to kill Americans?
Well guess they were pretty eager at Waco.
And Kent State, the difference being no one at Kent State had killed any federal agents and were unarmed.
|
| 91 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 18:34
|
grasping Box. Iraq is a foreoign nation, with English as the non-standard language, and customes are people dont really know about, let alone recognize. Just a wee bit different for the American GI who finds himself under orders in downtown Wichita, dont ya think?
Yes I do think, but no I don't agree with you. ;)
Yes there are cultural differences, but an armed populace is still scarier to its opposition than an unarmed populace.
US serviceen for the most part Baldwin, are not anxious to kill much of anyone. They will do their jobs though.
So in other words, B-Daddy is right.
|
| 92 | walk
ID: 12558186
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 19:34
|
I really don't think folks with handguns or assault weapons are necessary...and I don't think it would deter our military from "taking over." This is just a delusional point.
|
| 93 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 19:39
|
One shared by the FF.
|
| 94 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 19:59
|
Though Alexander Hamilton suggested in the Federalist Papers that the raising of a standing army at time of peace be illegal.
That assumption would color your view on arming of the populace and militias.
If they could have foreseen tomahawk missiles or even Gatling guns, their view might have been a bit different.
|
| 95 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 20:09
|
You do agree they were more concerned about preventing the rise of tyrants than just about anything?
|
| 96 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 20:12
|
Well... recent history was skewing their view of the the relative importance of things. ;)
If you, in this day and age, think tyranny will be averted by giving everyone a pistol, I can't really convince you of much of anything sensible, I don't think.
|
| 97 | Building 7
ID: 174591519
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 22:53
|
They did understand that they could not foresee everything in the future. That's why they inserted Article V....Amendments to the Constitution.
|
| 98 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Sat, Jun 28, 2008, 06:17
|
Lotsa people get killed by guns unnecessarily. This is not collateral damage. This can be avoided. No guns, a lot less killings
Walk we've been through this before. You think the bad guys are going to turn in their guns?
What do you mean no guns less killings, there are already tens of millions of them out there. How will there be less killings? The gang bangers are going to turn them all in? Nope, so you'll have a bunch of unarmed honest people left as sheep for the criminals
That said, if the King turned the military loose on the populace, and the military actually followed the order, the populace would last about 30 seconds,
Yeah just like in Iraq right now, right Bili? I mean it's a bunch of meagerly armed peasants holding off the greatest military power on the planet.
Simple truth...a civilain standing off in his brick home, would be slaughtered by the first Infantry assault squad on the premises.
Well and that would be Darwin's law Sarge because you would be a dumb ass if you were sitting in your home waiting for the military with a rifle. Try thinking out of the box a little, Sheez.
Yes there are cultural differences, but an armed populace is still scarier to its opposition than an unarmed populace.
This is the point exactly.
And they wouldn't be sitting in the house waiting to be slaughtered. They would be walking up behind any traitor who was part of this fascist government and pop him in the back of the head when he wasn't looking. (let me be clear I would be talking about a clearly illegal, unelected, police state type fascist government.)
If they could have foreseen tomahawk missiles or even Gatling guns, their view might have been a bit different.
Again, ain't working so well in Iraq are they Bili. They only work well against a uniformed standing army, not pissed off patriots who would work any way necessary to disrupt a fascist government. They wouldn't be standing out in the open saying shoot me.
Aside from all these points I have every right to defend myself against predators in my home and is anyone stupid enough to think if they banned handguns the criminals would turn them in? Are we that stupid? Or would it just be half the honest citizens who turn them in...making that half sheep.
|
| 99 | Tree
ID: 30543288
Sat, Jun 28, 2008, 09:54
|
You think the bad guys are going to turn in their guns?
many of the guns the "bad guys" have, were, at one point, legal guns. guns that were stolen or acquired through nefarious means. less guns of any kind available to the population at large means less guns in the hands of "bad guys"...
What do you mean no guns less killings, there are already tens of millions of them out there.
presuming you're talking about guns, and not the number of people killed by guns, there are actually HUNDREDS of millions in the U.S. it's some sort of absurd statistic, like 10 guns for every man, woman, and child in this country.
with that many guns, of course there are going to be a buttload of gun-related deaths. but if you reduce that number, you'll reduce the deaths.
How will there be less killings? The gang bangers are going to turn them all in? Nope, so you'll have a bunch of unarmed honest people left as sheep for the criminals
statistics in nations that are gun crazy like we are show that there are less killings. a LOT less killings.
you're very Rovian in your posting - OMGZ!!111!! innocent people will be sheep for slaughter if we outlaw guns!!!
NC - how many ordinary people do YOU know that have used a gun to save a life?
|
| 100 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jun 28, 2008, 10:42
|
many of the guns the "bad guys" have, were, at one point, legal guns. guns that were stolen or acquired through nefarious means. less guns of any kind available to the population at large means less guns in the hands of "bad guys"...
Aren't you worried about back alley gun sales?
|
| 101 | Tree
ID: 405142814
Sat, Jun 28, 2008, 15:15
|
Aren't you worried about back alley gun sales?
hence the reason i'd like to see tighter gun control.
|
| 102 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Sat, Jun 28, 2008, 17:04
|
Because gun laws prohibit selling guns out of trunks? How's that working in Chicago and Washington DC?
|
| 103 | Tree
ID: 405142814
Sat, Jun 28, 2008, 19:58
|
Because gun laws prohibit selling guns out of trunks? How's that working in Chicago and Washington DC?
less guns available = less guns being sold out of trunks.
|
| 104 | J-Bar
ID: 4357267
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 05:15
|
someone may need to read BHO's book again to relocate that new found tranquility, no smart ass was intended just pointing out a few facts that somehow we want to repeat with Iran. back on topic, i guess law abiding americans should be banned from owning handguns and 'israel should be wiped off the face of the earth' Iran should be allowed to have nukes. sounds like another Left side dilemma. hmmmm
|
| 105 | Boldwin
ID: 36524290
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 06:45
|
They are drawn to supporting the worst possible people being allowed weapons and disarming the victims...almost like moths to a flame, aren't they, J-Bar?
|
| 106 | Tree
ID: 54553298
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 10:01
|
someone may need to read BHO's book again to relocate that new found tranquility, no smart ass was intended just pointing out a few facts that somehow we want to repeat with Iran.
it was an asinine comment, as the comparisons between Iran and Hitler's Germany, are, well, non-existent. it was a stretch, and it was a stupid one at that.
and if you'll read the book, it also discusses not being afraid to call people out, and call them on lies and stupidity. have an honest and intellectual dialog, and when someone refuses to do that, call them out on it.
back on topic, i guess law abiding americans should be banned from owning handguns and 'israel should be wiped off the face of the earth' Iran should be allowed to have nukes. sounds like another Left side dilemma. hmmmm
again, more stupidity. it appears to me that while Jag may have left, he donated his brain and its sweeping generalizations to you.
as for this lefty, a stronger israel is a safer world.
|
| 107 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 11:01
|
someone may need to read BHO's book again to relocate that new found tranquility, no smart ass was intended just pointing out a few facts that somehow we want to repeat with Iran.
What am I missing? What facts are pointed out in that sentence?
relocate that new found tranquility
I have no idea what you mean. What new found tranquility? How can it be new if it's been located previously, necessitating the need to relocate?
What facts do we somehow want to repeat with Iran? Who is we?
More confusion:
back on topic, i guess law abiding americans should be banned from owning handguns and 'israel should be wiped off the face of the earth' Iran should be allowed to have nukes. sounds like another Left side dilemma. hmmmm
back on topic? The dilema here is trying to figure out just WTF topic you're talking about, since you cram three topics into one mish mash of a sentence - handgun ownership in the US; Israeli security and Iranian nukes. While the last two items are related, how do they connect with the first, and how is it a left dilema?
Apparently Balwin understands what you're talking about.
They are drawn to supporting the worst possible people being allowed weapons and disarming the victims...almost like moths to a flame, aren't they, J-Bar?
Who is this ubiquitous "they"? The Left side dilema? You've totally abandoned any sense of the conservative principal of "rugged individualism" in favor of group-think accusations based on partisan prejudice.
I realize your pundit heroes use this tactic daily, and like a moth to a flame, you feel the need to parrot such inanity, but consider the following:
You could query 10 people on this board who you consider the Left side and get ten varying responses on the following issues:
>Extent of rights of private citizens to own weapons
>Extent of US support for Israel
>Extent of US response to Iranian nuclear program
Has anyone here supported the idea that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth? Any notable US politician considered leftist? Anyone proposed disarming Israel? Anyone actively promoting that Iran build nuclear weapons? Anyone supporting the worst possible people being allowed weapons, which in this country would be street gangs, white supremacists, habitually-addicted methheads and the manufacturers of such and stalkers, while calling for law-abiding citizens to be disarmed?
The defense mechanisms that arise when the shoe's on the other foot are quite revealing, such as:
Conservatives want to pre-emptively nuke Iran, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, instead of having a face to face dialogue, as we have with North Korea, with the purpose of seizing their oil fields.
Some conservatives do want that, but if you queried 10 conservatives about the issue, you'd likely get 10 varying responses as to how to proceed in regard to our policy with Iran.
So, instead of being back on topic as J-Bar suggests, we have a whole new list of topics, and none of them laid out honestly in either #104 or #105.
|
| 108 | J-Bar
ID: 4357267
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 12:39
|
ok PV i thought you were an avid reader of the forum and the person that told me to F*ck off knew what was meant by the comment hence his retort in 106. the israel comment was a first name (nickname) that i was using for Iran which seemed to be missed by both 106 and 107. i am unsure who you think i idealize but the only point that i was making earlier was that if you appease a madman too long and then he does something horrible then it is too late and people 60-70 years from now will wonder why we didnt do something sooner.
pv - preemptively NUKE iran, i do not believe i have heard that from anyone. if you have then that would definitely be a major fringe solution that should rightly be ignored. already have laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals with a lot of mandatory sentencing, how are those working?
by the way tree, i was seriously contemplating reading the book but if it is telling you to tell people to f*ck off because you read something like i wrote then i don't believe it is something i am interested in.
oh and the widespread belief that violent crime as a whole is decreased because of the banning of handguns has as many studies and stats showing that it has little or no effect.
|
| 109 | Perm Dude
ID: 485372911
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 12:40
|
...many studies and stats...
Citation, please?
|
| 110 | Tree
ID: 54553298
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 14:05
|
the only point that i was making earlier was that if you appease a madman too long and then he does something horrible then it is too late and people 60-70 years from now will wonder why we didnt do something sooner.
but it was simply not a good comparison. in his wildest dreams, Saddam couldn't have done anywhere near what Hitler did. i mean, my god, Saddam couldn't even conquer Kuwait, much less Europe.
by the way tree, i was seriously contemplating reading the book but if it is telling you to tell people to f*ck off because you read something like i wrote then i don't believe it is something i am interested in.
it's no different than what Obama says now. Pull out the facts, and have integrity. don't use bull$hit and lies to get some (false) point across.
and if someone does that against you, call them on it.
it doesn't surprise that those who follow Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the like don't want to face the truth - they'd rather suck on the teat put in front of them than ask or analyze what's inside.
reading Audacity of Hope would do you a world of good. pass on it, only if you like your eyes wide shut.
|
| 111 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 14:29
|
the israel comment was a first name (nickname) that i was using for Iran which seemed to be missed by both 106 and 107.
I obviously missed it in #106, because I couldn't find anywhere in this thread where your subject matter was introduced. Your #74 was the only clue, but where did Obama's book, new found tranquility, or any connection to Iran come into play?
the only point that i was making earlier was that if you appease a madman too long and then he does something horrible then it is too late
OK, now we're getting somewhere, an Ahmadinejad/Hitler analogy, which may have some merit in a very general sense, but falls flat when analyzing specifics.
Ahmadinejad's quote about Israel is the context everyone uses to characterize him as a "madman."
Usually ignored is that he has been roundly criticized by the ruling mullahs, as well as many others involved within the Iranian power structure, of reckless and provocative statements. You would be hard-pressed to find such internal opposition against Hitler in the late 30s.
The appeasement claim concerning Hitler is based on Hitler's historical claim to the Sudetenland, a heavily German majority area ceded to the new country of Czechoslovakia(actually from Austri/Hungary)following WW1. The annexation of the Sudetenland into the 3rd Reich was signed by Chambelain(and French PM Daladier)in October 1938.
In modern terms, this would be analagous to Ahadinejad making territorial claims on Azerbaijan, the Pakistani portion of Baluchistan and large parts of Iraq based on historical claims that they were all once part of the Persian Empire and heavily populated with citizens of Persian blood and ancestry. The reality is that Iran has entire sections of its country populated by Azeris, Baluchs and Kurds which are in different levels of insurrection and hopes for autonomy.
While Hitler was appeased in his effort to expand his territorial base(not that Britain or France could have stopped him at that point), Ahmadinejad has to concern himself with internal conflict which threatens to shrink his territory.
So, who is appeasing Iran? One could argue with some credibility that Russia and China would be the culprits, since they are economically tied to Iran mostly through energy deals. The only way Iran is any type of a military threat, even on a regional basis, is with Russian, Chinese or boths' support.
We are already in a mini-arms race with the Chinese, and the Russians are ramping up their military capabilities, mostly in response to our country's aggressive and beligerent military posture.
Hitler and Ahmadinejad, 1930s Germany and 2000s Iran, appeasement and territorial ambitions 70 years and a continent apart, makes for a fallacious analogy. However, add China and Russia to the current mix with Iran, and you have a recipe for real global disaster.
Is that the direction we want our country's rhetoric to lead?
|
| 112 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 15:42
|
So Tree, less guns available = less guns being sold out of trunks, with your ardent stance against abortion I'm sure that you'd agree that by making abortions illegal (i.e. less abortions being created = less abortions done in back alleys) that your logic would apply there as well.
I await your support for a pro-life agenda. Thanks.
PV: I'd like to see a list of conservatives that support a pre-emptive nuking of Iran.
As far as the Hitler/Ahmadinejad analogy goes, I suppose we should wait for it to be 100% correct before we do anything as opposed to the guestimate 50% it is now.
|
| 113 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 16:21
|
I'd like to see a list of conservatives that support a pre-emptive nuking of Iran.
And I'd like to see a list of who supports the worst possible people being allowed weapons and disarming the victims.
Exactly as I predicted if you had read my post correctly, the defense mechanisms kick right in.
You have no problem accusing people of things sans quotable proof, but are quick to claim victim status when the same is applied to you.
the guestimate 50% it is now
I gave a fairly detailed analysis as to why the Hitler/Ahmadinejad analogy has no historic basis. If you're going to make a 50% claim, shouldn't you provide at least one sentence of supporting analysis?
|
| 114 | J-Bar
ID: 4357267
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 16:27
|
tree - you asked a question in 64 and i gave you a fact based answer and you told me to f*ck off, now you want to preach to me about facts -- whatever.
pv- the only analogy that i was making in reference to the 2 leaders was that if we pussyfoot around long enough bad things are sure to happen. if we allow him to gain the ability to deploy nuclear weapons with the mindset that he has in regards to israel then the instability can only get worse. we can continue this talk in the obama thread if needed, to discuss his take on foreign policy.
pd- where were you when Walk was making his assertions. but here is one for you.
link
|
| 115 | Tree
ID: 54553298
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 17:17
|
So Tree, less guns available = less guns being sold out of trunks, with your ardent stance against abortion I'm sure that you'd agree that by making abortions illegal (i.e. less abortions being created = less abortions done in back alleys) that your logic would apply there as well.
it's always fun to compare not only two different things, but to make up statistics in your brain to support one's silly talking points.
the problem with your idiot statement is that while the total number of abortions would probably decrease if they were made illegal, the number of pregnancies, would not.
so, suffice to say, if pregnancy levels remain the same, and abortion becomes illegal, the number if ILLEGAL (read: back alley) abortions would actually rise, because any abortion performed would be, presumably, illegal.
so, nice try there sport.
|
| 116 | Boxman
ID: 211139621
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 17:48
|
the problem with your idiot statement is that while the total number of abortions would probably decrease if they were made illegal, the number of pregnancies, would not
You missed the point, surprise, which would be to prevent abortions. So thanks for admitting I'm right.
So, since you are against abortion and outlawing them would decrease the amount you are for it then right?
Just like guns Tree. You want to decrease the amount of guns on the street so you make them illegal.
|
| 117 | Boxman
ID: 211139621
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 17:50
|
Tree: Why do you take a stance of wanting guns to be illegal and will side with the zeitgeist on it, but will not do so on abortion? Are you really that afraid of separating yourself from your liberalsim? Afraid of what you might find out about yourself should you actually think for yourself?
|
| 118 | Tree
ID: 54553298
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 18:56
|
You missed the point, surprise, which would be to prevent abortions.
i don't want to prevent abortions for everyone. i want to prevent abortions for me, so i take what steps are necessary to do so, despite the fact people like you don't want me to take those precautions either.
i want everyone to make their own decisions about preventing abortion, and not be told by me, or you, what they should do. you, however, don't feel the same way, and people like you murder those who feel abortion is a personal decision.
Why do you take a stance of wanting guns to be illegal and will side with the zeitgeist on it, but will not do so on abortion?
i'm sorry, i don't take a stance on abortion? i think my pro-choice stance is pretty clear here.
i also don't want guns to be illegal, and i'd like you to point out where i said i did. and if i did, i mis-spoke.
i want them more tightly regulated, but not banned outright, except in the cases of certain guns, such as guns that are clearly designed for a bit more killing power than just hunting, or shooting your wife in the face accidently.
|
| 119 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 19:03
|
i want to prevent abortions for me
Are you a woman? What do you mean by that statement? You know, it's also a little late for your mom to abort you. I'm not sure what you mean here.
i also don't want guns to be illegal, and i'd like you to point out where i said i did. and if i did, i mis-spoke.
You mis-spoke in the same post.
i want them more tightly regulated, but not banned outright, except in the cases of certain guns, such as guns that are clearly designed for a bit more killing power than just hunting, or shooting your wife in the face accidently.
Which guns would those be?
|
| 120 | Boldwin
ID: 225152912
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 19:18
|
and people like you murder those who feel abortion is a personal decision. - Tree
Excreable.
Conservatives...why do we bother talking to these libs?
|
| 121 | Tree
ID: 54553298
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 19:22
|
i want to prevent abortions for me
Are you a woman? What do you mean by that statement? You know, it's also a little late for your mom to abort you. I'm not sure what you mean here.
i feel like i am talking to a 3-year-old. i think it's pretty clear what i meant, but i will spell it out for you.
i would like to avoid being placed in a situation where i get a woman pregnant, and thusly, while i hope to have input in her decision, have to essentially abide by her decision. i may not like her decision, but i believe it is hers to make.
is that simple enough for you, simon?
i also don't want guns to be illegal, and i'd like you to point out where i said i did. and if i did, i mis-spoke.
You mis-spoke in the same post.
i want them more tightly regulated, but not banned outright, except in the cases of certain guns, such as guns that are clearly designed for a bit more killing power than just hunting, or shooting your wife in the face accidently.
Which guns would those be?
look it up - you and i both know there are gun out there strictly designed to kill as many people as possibly.
i suppose you're also in favor of the armor-piercing bullets - aka cop killers?
|
| 122 | Perm Dude
ID: 485372911
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 21:39
|
#114: Thanks for that. I have to admit that this is an unusual article. It ends by citing 3 sets of scientists who appear to reverse their positions on guns (though their original positions are not the same--they are close enough I suppose). The only studies cited, however, are the ones that they are abandoning.
Perhaps in the interest of the opinion article the new studies simply are omitted. Or maybe they don't exist. Hard to tell.
As for guns, the argument seems forced on both sides. I want to read the SCOTUS opinions more carefully before I weigh in on the ruling, but the abortion connection is really a stretch by the "conservatives" on the boards.
|
| 123 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Mon, Jun 30, 2008, 13:14
|
That commentary mishandled statistics so egregiously in the first paragraph, I couldn't fathom wasting my time reading the whole thing.
|
| 124 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, Jun 30, 2008, 13:30
|
Conservatives...why do we bother talking to these libs?
As far as Tree is concerned I really don't know why. I think there are others here that are great to engage in conversation because they offer something other than bile and wise a$$ cracks like thinking reformatting your post is an acceptable response.
I have seen left and right alike call out Tree and you'd think he'd learn by now that he's either not cut out for this or at least to stop acting like a prick.
Libertarians like Nerveclinic, liberals like Walk, Perm Dude and PV are normally pretty good to discuss the issues with. With the quantity of names I'm sure I'm leaving some other good contributors out.
I do think both sides at times are more interested in cock measuring as opposed to trying to come to a compromise or agreement on things.
You've been here longer than me Boldwin. How many times has Tree been destroyed on a debate topic? Yet I imagine that he doesn't learn a thing and still regurgitates left wing talking points. I recall Tree getting whalloped time and time again on issue after issue yet he still has the same viewpoints. In that respect, he's like W who has the same trait and he hates W.
|
| 125 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Jun 30, 2008, 13:37
|
As far as Tree is concerned I really don't know why. I think there are others here that are great to engage in conversation because they offer something other than bile and wise a$$ cracks like thinking reformatting your post is an acceptable response.
i made my points and positions clearly. you chose to try and engage in a semantical argument where you took my positions, and completely changed them to suit your needs, despite me saying the opposite.
hard to engage in discussion and debate with someone who has their fingers in their ears singing "it doesn't matter what you say your opinions are, it matters what *I* say your opinions are."
I have seen left and right alike call out Tree and you'd think he'd learn by now that he's either not cut out for this or at least to stop acting like a prick.
you've been called out my both as well. and much more recently than i have. are you less cut out?
How many times has Tree been destroyed on a debate topic? Yet I imagine that he doesn't learn a thing and still regurgitates left wing talking points. I recall Tree getting whalloped time and time again on issue after issue yet he still has the same viewpoints.
the crazy thing is that this also applies to you, and much more than me.
i like how after i sloooowly explained things to you in post 121, you switched tact and went into a completely direction, but that's also not terribly unusual for you.
and i hardly am a shining example of "left wing talking points", although it's funny to see you claim that. that's an old school tactic going back at least 20 years - "liburul iz bad!"
heck, my stance on israel alone is very much the opposite of "left wing talking points", and probably enough for some dyed-in-the-wool liberals to toss me from their parade.
|
| 126 | Boldwin
ID: 19438215
Fri, May 21, 2010, 12:19
|
No surprise the mayor of Chicago thinks like a mobster.When asked if the Chicago gun ban already in place had been effective in preventing violence.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|